Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enchanted Nemesis


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete. Veinor (talk to me) 22:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Enchanted Nemesis

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable web movie. The article by what appears to be a single-purpose account reads like advertising or promotion, largely consisting of unsubstantiated unverified claims.

I am also nominating the following related page, which is essentially the same article:
 * Agent 86 23:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Do not Delete This is no joke. It is not ludicrous to compare a feature length movie to another.  The analogy is that both movies are sequels that are better than originals.  (Based on opinion and is inherently a subjective statement that holds validity.) The movie's notability is a mute point because the popularity of the movie has nothing to do with the fact that it was the first feature length movie made specifically for the internet.  It is the first feature length movie made specifically for the internet regardless of how much presence it has to mainstream web users.  It is an underground movie that has seen success in various circles and the claim of being the first feature length movie made specifically for the internet is substantiated and corroborated by google searches regarding the subject of the claims.  There is no legitimate evidence to disprove the claims and the fact that the movie is not very popular for mainstream net surfers does not make the claims illegitimate.  The main claim of being the first feature length movie made specifically for the internet is of historical significance therefore this article should not be deleted.
 * Please provide sources that meet WP:RS and substanciate the claims made above. --Daniel J. Leivick 16:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Google results are also stacked against this one for notability.. consisting mainly of self promotion and distribution, there's a few "reviews" (minor conversation) among the results but no mention or review by mainstream sources. If this really was a notable topic one would think that there would be significant propagation beyond 70 unique hits over the past half decade. The claims of pioneering the field of internet movie features are also unsubstantiated to down right false. I'd say delete but I'm not logged in, although I'm sure due process will take it's course. Also, I smell like poo. 74.97.109.162


 * Comment Is this a joke? Comparing an amateur net flick to The Godfather Part II is ludicrous. Google results are also stacked against this one for notability.. consisting mainly of self promotion and distribution, there's a few "reviews" (minor conversation) among the results but no mention or review by mainstream sources. If this really was a notable topic one would think that there would be significant propagation beyond 70 unique hits over the past half decade. The claims of pioneering the field of internet movie features are also unsubstantiated to down right false. I'd say delete but I'm not logged in, although I'm sure due process will take it's course. Also, I smell like poo. 74.97.109.162
 * Delete Non-notable. Written like an ad. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ Review! 00:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable web-based movie with little presence on the web. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 05:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.